81 replies to this topic

[iloveorange]

Maybe you feel some drugs should be legal, some shouldn't? Why is it alcohol is legal but weed is not. Cigarretes but not meth. Where do we draw the line? In my opinion drugs should be your choice, if you want to take the risk on addiction / death it should be your choice. Although you should not be able to use while driving or in public and such.

EDIT: should have been posted in debate.

Edited by iloveorange, 05 September 2010 - 11:57 PM.

[bobsauce]

Due to my long post in "I do drugs" I wont say too much here. But I will say yes and no. I've seen a lot of people lose everything they have to heroin and cocaine. Drugs is a pretty broad statement. I however don't think pot is a big deal and legalization shouldn't cause many issues and would save a lot of people a good amount of money + add to tax dollars and put dealers out of business.

I personally believe limitations are what breed a lot of issues including with alcohol.

In the time I spent in European countries that don't have age limits on alcohol consumption I never saw a kid puking their brains out. I did see plenty of kids drinking often and quite drunk. In my opinion, limitations lead to people over using when they are able to get their hands on something. They want to do it as much as possible because it isn't readily available. In countries where kids are brought up without the stigmas assocaited with drinking they seem far less likely to drink themselves into submission.

[wtfints]

Yes. Panadol is drug too.

[MsRose]

Weed, yes. Meth, uhh not so much.

Weed is a pretty harmless herb. I'm not really sure why it's so taboo in society.

[Code]

In my opinion they should really ban cigarettes as well, is harmful and kills you slowly. In Canada millions of dollars was spent on curing people who got lung cancers and diseases caused be smoking, and who pays this? The tax payers. While this amount of money could go and maybe make the community better, but no, curing people who spent tons of money on cigarettes and end up killing themselves. Worst of all, they are legal.
I'd say ban all! Learn to eat carrot sticks kids.

[fxckyouguys]

YES! SO THEN EVERYONE CAN SHOOT UP HEROIN WHENEVER THEY WANT!!!!!

[luvsmyncis]

In my opinion they should really ban cigarettes as well, is harmful and kills you slowly. In Canada millions of dollars was spent on curing people who got lung cancers and diseases caused be smoking, and who pays this? The tax payers. While this amount of money could go and maybe make the community better, but no, curing people who spent tons of money on cigarettes and end up killing themselves. Worst of all, they are legal.
I'd say ban all! Learn to eat carrot sticks kids.

Some people who are non-smokers get cancer. Are you suggesting Canada should take back all the money for the research they're doing, just because SOME cancer patients were smokers? In your face, Breast Cancer!
Eh, whatever. Some really harmful shit is already legal, being dosed to kids because their parents don't know how to shut them up. Might as well throw herion into the mix.

[Waser Lave]

Some people who are non-smokers get cancer. Are you suggesting Canada should take back all the money for the research they're doing, just because SOME cancer patients were smokers? In your face, Breast Cancer!

I think they probably meant that the public money spent on treating 'self-inflicted' cancer patients could have gone to a 'more worthy' cause, not that treating all cancer patients is a waste of money.

[Code]

I think they probably meant that the public money spent on treating 'self-inflicted' cancer patients could have gone to a 'more worthy' cause, not that treating all cancer patients is a waste of money.

^ That

My teacher once said; If people got cancer/diseases by doing drugs, and the government no longer pay the bill for them, lots of people are going to quit smoking.

[Lineage]

^ That

My teacher once said; If people got cancer/diseases by doing drugs, and the government no longer pay the bill for them, lots of people are going to quit smoking.

Some insurance companies now raise your rates like crazy if you're a known smoker, or if you're overweight/obese. Provides quite the drive to get off your ass and get in shape if it means you're not paying rates that are through the roof (;

[MsRose]

Some insurance companies now raise your rates like crazy if you're a known smoker, or if you're overweight/obese. Provides quite the drive to get off your ass and get in shape if it means you're not paying rates that are through the roof (;

In Canada they have "free"health care which is paid for by taxpayers. To the best of my knowledge, they don't have insurance companies. What she is saying isn't relevant in the States until we all receive government health care.

I agree with what she is saying though. However, I think it would be incredibly hard to judge what exactly caused the cancer. If someone smokes for ten years, quits, and then gets lung cancer in another 20 years should the government still be responsible for paying their medical bills? There would be an incredible amount of gray area.

Edited by MsRose, 06 September 2010 - 12:52 PM.

[EzioAuditore]

Legalizing hard addictive drugs like meth, heroin, coke, etc would be a terrible idea.

Legalizing weed or other drugs that aren't so addictive would be fine with me. I think legalizing something that is super addictive would just make those addicts start to rob people and get people for ransom just so they can get their high when they go broke.

[Puppetmaster]

Ultimately, we need to look out for the safety of the non-users. I don't give a fuck if some user dies of an overdose, but if they're hopped up on meth and shoot up a convenient store or beats up a wife and kid, then it's a fucking problem.

[EzioAuditore]

Ultimately, we need to look out for the safety of the non-users. I don't give a fuck if some user dies of an overdose, but if they're hopped up on meth and shoot up a convenient store or beats up a wife and kid, then it's a fucking problem.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

[Frizzle]

^ That

My teacher once said; If people got cancer/diseases by doing drugs, and the government no longer pay the bill for them, lots of people are going to quit smoking.

So anyone who has a self-inflicted injury or illness, they should pay for it? So smokers should pay for their cancer treatment? What about alcoholics? Drug addicts? Ok, I see your point. But let's extend that. Anyone who is overweight? Anyone who self-harms or attempt suicide? Anyone who takes part in dangerous activites including, but not exhaustive of:

Sports
Hardcore Sports
Sexual activity
Allergic reations
Driving vehicles
Working
Running
Cleaning
Watching films
Reading
Having children
Getting married
Being in a relationship
Acting
Owning animals
Visting the Zoo
Socialising
Listening to music
Going to Festivals
Doing stand-up
Playing Darts
Having friendships
Flying
Breathing
Living
And sticking your finger in your anus when you're bored.

All of these activites are guaranteed to have some sort of negative medical impact eventually. Should all of these be on your list of "self-inflicted" injuries (pyschological or biologcial wise)?

This.

Your example is exactly why socialism fails in this regard. You have to either ban a personal liberty in the vested interest of the public or you have to foot the bill for those making unhealthy decisions.

Just another reason capitalism prevails.

As to your topic... I think that all drugs should be regulated... but I wouldn't say out-and-out come pick up your meth at the local gas station. (Talk about a symbol for america right there! XD)

Fuck you. I have the NHS.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

You don't take into socio-economical factors though.

[sonic]

FUCK NO.
Would be a fiscal disaster for me.

and dont use the "s" word so much. MalcomX searches the word "socialism" all the time. No need for any canadian terrorist views in such a peacfull topic.

[chinapple]

Maybe you feel some drugs should be legal, some shouldn't? Why is it alcohol is legal but weed is not. Cigarretes but not meth. Where do we draw the line? In my opinion drugs should be your choice, if you want to take the risk on addiction / death it should be your choice. Although you should not be able to use while driving or in public and such.

EDIT: should have been posted in debate.

Alcohol is legal because the consumption of alcohol is a long vested tradition in human history. Alcohol was illegal in the states for a decade or so, until Roosevelt legalized it again. They tried and failed. =/
Cigarettes similarily go back a long time in history. By the time their adverse health effects have been discovered, cigarettes have firmly established themselves in society.
Drugs like meth and heroine are relatively new (I think?) and obvioulsy and blatantly destructive. Thus they are not legal.

You say to take the risk on addition/death is a choice. Isn't driving while doing said drugs a personal choice to risk death? =p

[chinapple]

Maybe you feel some drugs should be legal, some shouldn't? Why is it alcohol is legal but weed is not. Cigarretes but not meth. Where do we draw the line? In my opinion drugs should be your choice, if you want to take the risk on addiction / death it should be your choice. Although you should not be able to use while driving or in public and such.

EDIT: should have been posted in debate.

Alcohol is legal because the consumption of alcohol is a long vested tradition in human history. Alcohol was illegal in the states for a decade or so, until Roosevelt legalized it again. They tried and failed. =/
Cigarettes similarily go back a long time in history. By the time their adverse health effects have been discovered, cigarettes have firmly established themselves in society.
Drugs like meth and heroine are relatively new (I think?) and obvioulsy and blatantly destructive. Thus they are not legal.

You say to take the risk on addition/death is a choice. Isn't driving while doing said drugs a personal choice to risk death? =p

[Fatal]

Legalizing weed or other drugs that aren't so addictive would be fine with me. I think legalizing something that is super addictive would just make those addicts start to rob people and get people for ransom just so they can get their high when they go broke.

If all drugs were legal, there would be less need for drug addicts to rob people, as the drugs would be extremely cheap. Right now due to the illegality of drugs, it puts very high costs on them, which forces drug addicts to go out and rob, so it seems you have it a little backwards.

Alcohol is legal because the consumption of alcohol is a long vested tradition in human history. Alcohol was illegal in the states for a decade or so, until Roosevelt legalized it again. They tried and failed. =/
Cigarettes similarily go back a long time in history. By the time their adverse health effects have been discovered, cigarettes have firmly established themselves in society.

Marijuana used to be legal, and has been used in society as far back as the 3000 B.C. So why is marijuana illegal?

[Warriors]

Marijuana used to be legal, and has been used in society as far back as the 3000 B.C. So why is marijuana illegal?

Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use. Its known uses go back further than 7,000 B.C..Egyptians used it as an anesthesia for surgery...I believe it was also around 10,000 years ago in Ancient China used for surgeries, paper, and clothes.

Marijuana, Hemp, has a number of uses and due to certain individuals it became illegal.

Also, the new head of the Bureau of Narcotics, Harry J. Anslinger was a frequent contributor to "yellow journalism" He promoted and frequently read from “Gore Files” — wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex and… Negroes. He also wrote and testified for Congress, twisting the American Medical Association words on how dangerous weed is. He was quoted as saying...

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers, had invested a lot of money into the timber industry, and Hemp being a cheaper more easily produced and stronger quality paper, Hearst didn't want his money to go bad so he had helped make it illegal.

Hearst and Anslinger then came up with the The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. This effectively made weed illegal by distorting the facts the AMA made about marijuana....

Edited by Warriors, 07 September 2010 - 12:08 PM.

[pyke]

So anyone who has a self-inflicted injury or illness, they should pay for it? So smokers should pay for their cancer treatment? What about alcoholics? Drug addicts? Ok, I see your point. But let's extend that. Anyone who is overweight? Anyone who self-harms or attempt suicide? Anyone who takes part in dangerous activites including, but not exhaustive of:

Sports
Hardcore Sports
Sexual activity
Allergic reations
Driving vehicles
Working
Running
Cleaning
Watching films
Reading
Having children
Getting married
Being in a relationship
Acting
Owning animals
Visting the Zoo
Socialising
Listening to music
Going to Festivals
Doing stand-up
Playing Darts
Having friendships
Flying
Breathing
Living
And sticking your finger in your anus when you're bored.

All of these activites are guaranteed to have some sort of negative medical impact eventually. Should all of these be on your list of "self-inflicted" injuries (pyschological or biologcial wise)?



Fuck you. I have the NHS.



You don't take into socio-economical factors though.

Smoking != sports, sex, work, pets, friends. Accidents happening in everyday life is in no way translatable to knowingly taking in something poisonous.

[Frizzle]

If all drugs were legal, there would be less need for drug addicts to rob people, as the drugs would be extremely cheap. Right now due to the illegality of drugs, it puts very high costs on them, which forces drug addicts to go out and rob, so it seems you have it a little backwards.




Marijuana used to be legal, and has been used in society as far back as the 3000 B.C. So why is marijuana illegal?

Actually, legalising and putting the cost down will just mean addicts will abuse substances more and become more addicted and immune therefore needing higher doses and more of the actual drug. Therefore the price goes down and the usuage goes up but the actual cost is the same. Therefore they will still rob and steal.

Also, it used to be legal to rape your wife as she was considered to be your possession.

Smoking != sports, sex, work, pets, friends. Accidents happening in everyday life is in no way translatable to knowingly taking in something poisonous.

So what you're saying is, if there's a high percentage it could do something dangerous to yourself, we should charge? I'd like you to walk into a chemo ward and tell people that.

Or maybe explain to a an attempted suicide victim that they now have to cough up $4000 they don't have.

Or explain because of the high risks of injurie through skateboarding, you have to pay for everything.

Edited by Frizzle, 07 September 2010 - 01:37 PM.

[WakaWaka]

^ That

My teacher once said; If people got cancer/diseases by doing drugs, and the government hardworking people who pay taxes no longer pay the bill for them, lots of people are going to quit smoking.

fixed it for you.

[Fatal]

Actually, legalising and putting the cost down will just mean addicts will abuse substances more and become more addicted and immune therefore needing higher doses and more of the actual drug. Therefore the price goes down and the usuage goes up but the actual cost is the same. Therefore they will still rob and steal.

Sounds like a contradiction .... "prices goes down and the usage goes up but the actual cost is the same" --- whaaat?

If it was legal to produce any drug, then the supply would skyrocket so high that it would be impossible for the addicts to be in need of even more drug, therefore the price should go down. I don't see any possible way for drug prices to remain the same after legalization, that makes no sense.

Also I believe short term there could be some problems, but long term it would be better to have full legalization of drugs.

[Puppetmaster]

Also I believe short term there could be some problems, but long term it would be better to have full legalization of drugs.

I can't tell if you're trolling, or just retarded. Seriously? Full legalization?

Yes, this is excessively blunt, but I'm just making sure my point gets across